Re: Buffer Requests Trace - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Lucas Lersch
Subject Re: Buffer Requests Trace
Date
Msg-id CAGR3jZCDYJKm97-H5pHn7Hg-Vt0YjuudrEFhVO_GociE5Pwu5g@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Buffer Requests Trace  (Stephen Frost <sfrost@snowman.net>)
Responses Re: Buffer Requests Trace
List pgsql-hackers
Aren't heap and index requests supposed to go through the shared buffers anyway?

On Tue, Oct 14, 2014 at 7:02 PM, Stephen Frost <sfrost@snowman.net> wrote:
* Lucas Lersch (lucaslersch@gmail.com) wrote:
> shared_buffers is 128MB and the version of pgsql is 9.3.5

I suspect you're not tracking what you think you're tracking, which is
why I brought up shared_buffers.

~14k * 8192 (page size) = ~110MB

What it sounds like you're actually tracking are shared buffer requests
and not heap or index requests.

Now, perhaps the test you're running only touched 110MB of the 6G
database, but that seems pretty unlikely.

        Thanks,

                Stephen



--
Lucas Lersch

pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: "Joshua D. Drake"
Date:
Subject: Re: Expose options to explain? (track_io_timing)
Next
From: Marco Nenciarini
Date:
Subject: [RFC] Incremental backup v3: incremental PoC